CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

Penalties Art. 21-47

Friday, 18 August 2017
5:42 PM
There will be some little bit of the graduation thing. We will be doing that later.

It is basic criminal law that there can be no crime if there is no penalty. Even if there is let us
say a description of an illegal act - if it doesn't have a penalty, it is not a crime. A crime is an
act and a penalty prescribed for that act.

Then we talk about ex-post facto. When we first met, we talked about retroactivity and
prospectivity. This is a refresher. Of course, there are exceptions.

Article 21 talks about pardon. But we'll talk about that later in Art. 36. Cuz there's pardon by
offended party and pardon by President.

What are restrictions of deprivations without penalties? We can only know the penalty once
they are convicted. If there is a crime, dakpon dayon unya ipriso. But it will take time to try
the case in court and it may even take years. In the meantime, where is the suspect? He is an
accused, not a convict. They are presumed innocent according to the Constitution.

We will have deprivations of liberty that are not yet considered penalties. When the accused
is detained, he is detained in the meantime that the case is pending against him. If he is
presumed innocent, he must still be able to exercise his right, such as his right to vote and
right to be voted for. We have persons who are already in detention but still ran for public
office like Trillanes. They can still run, and the prisoners in CPDRC can still vote because they
are still presumed innocent. Once they are convicted, they will be imprisoned together with
the main penalty. There is such a thing as an accessory penalty which could be the
deprivation of political rights such as absolute disqualification. It can be perpetual or
temporary; absolute or special. He cannot run anymore or vote.

What is the purpose? The detention is for one thing: not to punish but to assure that they will
not escape while the case is still being tried. As so, if they can assure the court and make an
assurance that they will not escape while the trial is pending or ongoing, then the court may
allow them to get out of prison. Why are they in jail?

1. They were not able to post bail. Because if they were, they would have been
outside and not in prison. Even if the charges are bailable, they were not able to post
bail. [could be money, property, surety]

2. The crime they committed would not allow bail to be posted.

In a bail bond, you make a guarantee. If there is that guarantee, the accused can get out of
the CPDRC and etc. The only purpose is that he will not escape. That's it.

ARE THEY ALLOWED TO TRAVEL OVERSEAS?

Hold departure order is needed for them to stop travelling abroad. You can travel if there is
no HDO. That is what happened to David Lim, the singer who was accused of rape.

This is not yet a penalty. The truth of the matter is that their lives are more miserable than
those who are actually convicted. They cannot sleep at the same time because there is no
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

space for them to lie down at the same time. Other who lie down with others standing or
sitting. And yet, they are still presumed to be innocent. As a matter of fact, 60% or 50+% will
be convicted. Meaning, 30+% will be acquitted. And yet it is possible that just because they
didn't post bail, they have suffered. In other jails, those who have it better are already
convicted.

Insane persons even if they have committed crimes, they have to be committed to mental
institutions. They are not criminally liable. Their hospitalization will not be done.

Minors will only be committed in jail if they are in the age of majority. Suspended sentence -
they will be committed to institutions, There will be intervention programs to give them a
chance to correct themselves. We said that a person who is 15 or below cannot incur
criminal liability, but it doesn't mean they are exempt from youth institutions because there
will still be programs that will be committed. Like for example, a person who is 12 years old
committed murder, he will be exempt but you cannot send him out on the streets because
there is something that needs to be done. We only have a few of these institutions because
they did not really put allocation budget on that.

Suspension of employment during trial. The purpose of that is preventive. It's so that he will not
be able to influence the outcome of the investigation. It's for those who are public officials.
They cannot use their influence in the investigation.

Administrative fines are imposed by administrative bodies. While we say the RPC has fines as
a penalty, even under special penal laws and ordinances, they are penalties that cannot be
imposed by administrative bodies. They can only be imposed by the court. If you are fined by
the LTO for not wearing a helmet, you are not fined as a penalty. It is an administrative fine.

PENALTIES ART. 25-88

So we classify penalties such as capital penalties, afflictive, correctional, and light. Place the
picture here.

For prision correcional, you spend it in prison, but destierro is spent outside. They have the
same divisible penalties.

It is important to classify penalties into different places because they have different
prescription periods and expiration periods. They have a purpose in classifying divisible and
indivisible. The mitigating circumstances and etc. are not effective if the penalty is indivisible.

Accessories are the disqualification whether perpetual or temporary. These are accessories.
Naa sad na siyay importance why we make these classifications.

Reclusion Perpetua [Check slide]

It is indivisible, but actually, it has a number of years. These are for purposes of parole. If you
are imprisoned for the minimum period, you can ask for the parole. If you are not good
during your period, you are not eligible for parole. If you have plenty of crimes, like murder of
3, it's only up to the maximum. It's not like life imprisonment because that has no fixed period.

If double murder or tulo kabuok in one instance. Let us just say that Maguindanao Massacre -
57 deaths in one occasion. That would be 57 reclusion perpetuas for Ampatuan. But in
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

actuality, it is possible that that can be the conviction. But the service cannot exceed forty
years or even less. We will go to execution of service of sentence in another time.

You cannot say reclusion perpetua medium or etc., it just has to be reclusion perpetua.

RECLUSION PERPETUA v. LIFE IMPRISONMENT *pic*

Reclusion perpetua is usually in felonies. Life imprisonment is only imposed in special penal
laws. But in special penal laws, there can also be reclusion perpetua.

Reclusion perpetua = special penal laws and RPC. Definite duration. Has accessory penalties.
Life Imprisonment - Special penal laws.

DESTIERRO *pic*

Civil Interdiction *pic*

It usually comes with a penalty. It is an accessory penalty. It is not monetary in nature. You will
lose your civil rights and responsibilities. You cannot be a guardian anymore, you cannot
exercise parental authority, you cannot manage a business even if it is your own because it is
part of the penalty.

PARDON BY PRESIDENT V. PARDON BY PRESIDENT *PIC*

Criminal case who is the plaintiff - the people of the Philippines. Even if the plaintiff is the
people of the Philippines, there is also a private offended party. If we say robbery, there is a
person who is offended. So, in a criminal case, we may have a case where there is a victim or
there is one that is victimless. Such as junta or illegal possession of firearms or dangerous
drugs. It is possible that the offender is also a victim.

However, in a criminal case where there is a victim, what if or what is the effect if the victim
will pardon the offender?

Article 23 - Pardon by offended party will have no bearing on the criminal case, but only if it is
filed. The people will now become the plaintiff. Wala na nay bearing. If it is before the filing of
the criminal case, it will have a bearing. For example, snatching and then nauli, and the
person does not execute an affidavit and pinpoint the snatcher, then the police cannot file a
case against them. It is encouraged in property crimes like estafa, robbery, etc. Even in libel,
oral defamation, it is encouraged to just send it to the barangay. Because there are a lot of
real cases that merits very little time the Court has, so it encourages estafa and kawat kawat
na i-settle lang siya.

The victim can even be imprisoned because the court issued a subpoena and you did not
come to court. You can be imprisoned for contempt of court.

There are instances where the pardon of the private party can extinguish criminal liability.

#1 The woman who is raped can pardon the rapist through marriage.

#2 - If there are certain crimes like estafa, once nailad ka in estafa, once ni untol na ang
cheke, naay crime. However, there are kinds (1) of estafa where the law allows for a grace
period. The law states that you still have 3 days to make good on the check. That will negate
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

criminal liability. We call it incipient criminal liability. It is not yet a mature criminal liability. If
you file it in court, the court will dismiss it for being premature.

In order for criminal liability to mature, you must still make a written demand. If i-reject ang
demand or nothing was done, that is the time you can really go to court. Within that stage,
there is only incipient criminal liability. It is allowed under the law; technically, even if there is
incipient criminal liability, if you pardon him/her, there will be no criminal liability. A STALE
CHECK CAN NEVER GIVE RISE TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY BECAUSE IT WASN'T YOUR FAULT. YOU
ALLOWED THE CHECK TO GO STALE AND IMO NANG IADTO SA BANGKO, THEN THAT WILL NOT
BE BOUNCING CHECKS. A PERSON IS ONLY ALLOWED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO MAKE GOOD ON A
CHECK.

3. When Erap was pardoned, it only extended to the criminal liability, but in the
crime of plunder, you have illegally-gotten wealth worth at least 50 million. Na-pardon
ka, but you have to pay the money. Civil liabilities are not included in the pardon.
Whatever was illegally gotten, they will be taken back. Now, pardon in the private
offended party often includes the civil aspect. Si Juan nakabangga ni Pedro, they will
say that ayaw nalang bai, maginsurance nalang ta. It has something to do with the civil
liability.

4. Duterte can only pardon himself when he is already convicted. The President
cannot be sued in immunity, but he can be tried in ICC. It is an executive prerogative. It
doesn't matter what the case is. Even Ampatuan can be pardoned because it is an
executive prerogative.

5. Pardon by the offended party can only pardon private crimes.

[CASAA-D] Concubinage, Adultery, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness,
Defamation (refers to concubinage, abduction, seduction, adultery, acts of
lasciviousness].

If for example, si Juan ug si Juana naay anak si Juanito. Juanito nangabit ni Maria. Wala ni file
si Maria kay love. Si Juanito, suya kay si Maria kay mas daghan ug allowance kaysa niya. Can
he file for concubinage?

This can only be filed by the offended party. So no. It is only the offended spouse. Children
are not included. In these cases, both parties must be included. It must be extended to the
other one. Pardon benefits both of them.

Article 38 - Pecuniary Liabilities

Reparation - usually refers to property. Kung kaguba ka ug cellphone, ibalik ang phone. Etc.

Indemnification - it is possible that it is not property. If the house is burnt, it is not replaced but
given money instead. Gi-libel. Tungod ana sleepless nights, moral anxiety, and etc. you can
get moral damages. That is indemnification.

Article 39 - Subsidiary Penalty *pic*

The penalty is a fine. This is one of those that you said is not fair because of poverty. If the
penalty is only a fine not imprisonment, if the accused or convict cannot pay the fine, he/she
will be imprisoned. This is subsidiary imprisonment. It will not exceed 3 months.
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

APPLICATION OF PENALTIES Art 46-77. EXECUTION OF PENALTIES ART. 78-88

*pic*

Application of Penalties

ONLY FOR THE CONSUMMATED STAGE FRUSTRATED Attempted

Homicide - RT (For the principal) PM PC

PM - Accomplice PC

PC - Accessory AM

Complex Crime Art 48

Only one act that results to two or more grave or less grave.

1 - 2 or more. Then that is an ordinary complex crime. Clue: when one act resulting in two or
more, we usually use the word WITH.

Second formula: There are two offenses. Two or more. 2 = 1 is a means to commit another. For
example, you falsify a title of a land. That's a crime. Your purpose of falsifying is so that you
can sell the land. Because it does not belong to you, you pretend to be the owner. Falsifying
a public document is a crime, just because you falsified it. But if it is private, you cannot
commit a crime by simply falsifying it. It should result to damage for it to be a crime.

Nangilad ka para mabaligya nimo. The pangilad is another crime. It is estafa. You have a
situation where one is a falsification of a public document where it is a means to commit
estafa, another crime. That is the other example.

IN THESE CASES, THERE IS ONLY ONE PENALTY. It is the penalty of the highest in its maximum
period.

THOSE TWO FORMULAS ARE ARTICLE 48. THESE ARE ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIMES.

Other complex crimes = special complex crimes.

THE ONLY SPECIAL CRIMES: CHECK PIC PLS IMPORTANT. It does not follow a formula.
AM
XX

Complex Crimes
Friday, 8 September 2017
5:32 PM

When you are confronted with two or more crimes committed, you determine whether two or
more crimes constitute as special complex crime. You would know there is a SCC if you
actually memorized the special complex crimes. If there is no special complex crime, you
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

have to determine whether one crime is inherent in another. If it is part of the elements, we
incorporate it with the main crime.

Case Study: (Picture)

Several people killed several victims. We don't know how many acts were committed. Who
killed the passengers, we do not know. What is or how do we file the cases here? We go to
the basic principle that for every act resulting in one death, it results in one felony. One
felony, one penalty.

Picture (People v. Orias) This is the very basic principle in law, but in complex crimes, we
have two or more crimes which only have one penalty. This is true whether the crime is
a special complex crime. Once it is complex, there is only one penalty now for the two
crimes. It can be many crimes. For example, robbery with homicide. Robbery is a
bailable offense. The highest penalty there would only be reclusion temporal.
Sometimes, it is prision mayor or prision correcional. If there is homicide, the penalty
there is only reclusion temporal.

If one is charged with rebellion, all other crimes will be absorbed. It will only be one. Accdng
to SC, when the common crimes are committed in furtherance of the rebellion, all common
crimes will be absorbed within the political crime. Most of the time, we never file rebellion
cases. But Manila DOJ, they file rebellion cases, and that's when we'll have a problem. Then,
the accused will be posting bail. When the time comes for trial, you cannot find them
anymore. Our style is never to file rebellion cases because it’s hard to prove rebellion. It's
easier to prove murder. You cannot post bail for this.

Whereas if we file a case of rebellion, we will not only prove that he committed murder, we
must prove that the purpose in committing the crime is for rebellion. In Marawi, they have to
justify rebellion. That's why they won't file terrorism. Under the Constitution, terrorism is not a
ground for Martial Law.

Enrile v. Amit: He was charged with rebellion, and then he was charged for obstruction of
justice. It is not a felony, but it is a crime under a special penal law. Enrile said no, you cannot
charge me for obstruction of justice because he was already charged with rebellion.
Everything he committed was absorbed under rebellion. He harbored or hid, concealed
Gringo. SC agreed and it was absorbed.

NELMIDA: (Picture) Several people died and several accused, but although we do not know
who killed whom, there was evidence that all of them acted under a conspiracy. They were
all conspirators, and when you have a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. And
because it is the act of all, never mind if we don't know who killed whom. As long as all of
them conspired, all of them will be liable for the deaths of all of them.

Before Nelmida, the standing decision was the one of Lawas. (Picture). It was there in 1955,
and was just changed around 2000. We did not know who fired the shots, and we do not
know who actually executed. We cannot also prove conspiracy. There was no proof to
conspiracy. Here, there was no proof and evidence of the conspiracy. SC therefore modified
the formula under Art. 48. Lawas said when we say one act, it could include several acts
under a single impulse. We cannot have here one act because there are actually many acts.
We would not know how to file a case. Who shot A or B? There were 50 plus victims. Who shall
be charged if you do not have evidence to the conspiracy?
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

Because of the impossibility of knowing who to charge, SC came up with the single impulse
doctrine in the Lawas case. Even if there are several acts, we can apply Art. 48 and we can
have an ordinary complex crime. Lawas was more or less 60 years, and then Nelmida came
about. We have to make this clear that the application of Lawas should only be limited to
situations where we do not have evidence of a conspiracy. Where we have an evidence of
a conspiracy, there can be as many crimes there as many deaths. Nelmida did not abandon
the Lawas ruling. What happened in Nelmida is that it only sort of limited the application of
Lawas to situations where there is no proof of a conspiracy. Where there is proof, then Lawas
would not be applicable.

(Picture) However, SC also took note of the fact that it has also handed down or rendered
decisions where they applied the Lawas Doctrine, even if there was evidence to a
conspiracy. SC said okay, the rule is when there is a conspiracy, for every death, that is one
crime. No complexing. We apply Lawas when we do not have evidence of a conspiracy. We
take note of the singularity of the impulse. By way of exception to the exception, we have
the Pincalin, De Los Santos etc. It occurs only in the prison committed by the prisoners. All
these cases involve a jail riot. These cases adopted a single impulse doctrine because it
involves prisoners; conspiracy is present.

ROBBERY WITH ROBBERY (Case)

In this case, we said that in complexing, there must be two crimes committed. You cannot
have one crime only, or you cannot have one complete and one incomplete crime. In
complex, you must have two separate crimes. It is stated in the book that you cannot
complex estafa through falsifications of private documents. For falsification, element must
result in damage or it is the purpose of the damage. If you just falsify your diary or letter
instead of signing Juan De la Cruz, you sign as James Bond or whatever, that is not a crime.
Or for example, you send an application letter, or a letter saying you are 25 years old, you are
28 years old. There is no crime for damage.

It is different when it is a public or official document or commercial document. Why? Because

for example, there is a check where instead you falsify the signature in the check. That is a
crime, even if you did not derive anything. Because a check is a commercial document.
Damage result in private documents is not needed in this case because it is a commercial
document. Or in a land ownership, you pretend you are the owner of the land because it
would now say that Pedro is the land owner through falsification. Was there falsification? Yes.
Was there damage? No. But it is not necessary because it is commercial. Damage is only
necessary when the document is private.

What if they falsified the document, and because of that falsified document, someone was
deceived to buy, those are two separate crimes. The swindling would not happen if it weren't
for falsification. Falsification was a means in committing estafa. It is a complex crime because
it fits in Art. 48. That can only happen if the document is public. Because if the document is a
private document, in order to constitute falsification, you must have falsification as well as
damage. If it is a private document, let us say for example, that Juan wrote you a letter to
pay for rentals (private letter). You pretended that you were Juan and signed it. And going to
Pedro telling him to pay rentals because you were authorized, it will only be one crime. This is
because the document was private. Since there is only one damage, you cannot complex. If
the document was public, you don't need the requisite of damage.

In Napolis, the robbers entered a house. Actually, the house was partly a store and a
dwelling. So, Napolis and his friends went inside the store by destroying the door. That's how
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

they entered the store, but they did not get anything from the store. Instead, after destroying
the door, they went inside the bedroom. Inside, they saw the couple and intimidated them
by pointing a gun and telling them to hand them the money.

Where was the taking done? There was no taking in the store. There was no robbery. If they
took something in the store, they would have committed one robbery here. It would be the
use of force upon things, but they did not get anything there. So, there is no robbery. They
proceeded to the bedroom, and pointed the gun at the couple where they give the money
and jewelry. In this case, there was robbery with violence and intimidation. Because they held
them at gunpoint. So that's the robbery.

WHAT IS MORE SERIOUS? ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION OR ROBBERY WITH
FORCE UPON THINGS?

If they did not destroy the door, they could not have entered. There is only one robbery
because there is only one taking. But both the modes of committing the robbery were
committed. The SC said, how do we call this crime? Because both modes were employed.
Can we say that it is either of the two? The SC said the crime would be called according to
the seriousness of the crime. This is robbery with violence or intimidation. But the problem is
that there would be a lesser penalty. Not even the other mode could be used because it
would be a lesser offense overall. In Napolis, the solution of the court was that it is a complex
crime. It is robbery with robbery.

It would have been different if they went inside and took something and then robbery with
intimidation. It would be perfect for Art. 48. Now we have one robbery as a mode to commit
the other robbery. The problem is that there was only one taking. The robbery with violence
with intimidation was complete, but not the robbery with force upon things. This is in 1972.

10 Years after, it was mentioned in People v. Liani. There is no intention of abandoning the
Napolis case. In the case of Franzdila case (2015), SC again reiterated Napolis doctrine. They
are not abandoning the ruling.

(Another picture about the Napolis case)

In the complexing, although you thought you understood the formulas, every now and then,
SC would challenge you by inventing other principles. Such as the single impulse doctrine in
the Lawas case. Here's the thing. The single impulse doctrine apparently only applies in
crimes against persons. In Damano, Juan entered the chicken coop with chickens owned by
different persons. If we go for Orias, every taking of one chicken, it is one crime. In this case,
SC said there was only one crime. It wasn't even complex. It was one simple theft only. The
Lawas was more in line with the formula. The Single Impulse Doctrine which will result in a
complex crime only applies in crimes against persons. In the manok case, that is the single
larceny doctrine.

It has been clarified in Santiago v. Lorena (in syllabus). She was accused of taking money. The
SC said there was only one crime even if there was several taking. There was only one simple
crime applying the single larceny doctrine enunciated in the manok case. The effect of this is
that there is only one crime. The effect of the single impulse doctrine is that there is a complex
crime.

PENALTY FOR ERROR IN PERSONAE (picture)

 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

It is not really refer to the praeter intentionem because it is already listed in Art. 13 as one of
the mitigating circumstances. Praeter intentionem is actually mitigating, not Art. 49. This only
applies in error in personae. It is very specific, also. If you come to think of it, it will only apply
when the crime committed was parricide. Because in error in personae, not involving
parricide, it does not matter who gets killed. Whether it was Juan or Pedro, it would be the
same murder, but there will be changes when the crime will become parricide. Or when the
crime will become murder. SC said when you killed somebody without intention to the minor,
it will make the crime murder. As a matter of fact, a more recent decision 17 na ang victim,
and yet the crime was still murder. The essence of 17 is that there was abuse of superior
strength because he was 17. In reality, there are 16 year olds that are big, but in the ruling of
the SC, it is because the victim was 16 that the crime was already murder.

2-3 years ago, the case did not mention the size or the manner of committing. It was just
because the victim was 17. We can understand if the victim is 5 years old, but if the victim is
already 17, it depends on the actual case because if the killer is like 60 years old and sickly
versus a 17 year old who is big, that would not necessarily be abuse of superior strength. BUT
BECAUSE IT IS THE PREVAILING DOCTRINE, IT IS THE RULE THAT KILLING A MINOR QUALIFIES
HOMICIDE TO MURDER.

What if the crime intended was lesser than what was committed?

We use the lesser penalty. If he wanted to kill the son but killed another person. If the fight was
between father and son, and the son tried to hit the father with a shot but killed someone
else (stranger). The penalty imposed is the homicide because it is the lesser crime rather than
parricide.

GRADUATION OF PENALTIES (BY DEGREE OR PERIOD; PICTURE)

Degree Period

Stage of the crime; Participation; Aggravating, mitigating except

Privileged privileged.

If we lower degree, we consider the

penalty. If RP is the penalty, it is only the
penalty for the consummated. For
frustrated, one degree lower. For
attempted, another degree lower. If this is
murder, then we lower it to reclusion
1temporal and then Prision Mayor. If
participation is merely accomplice, we
lower it to three. It is according to
commission or participation.

Two mitigating circumstance (or more) +

no aggravating = one degree lower.

Special aggravating - maximum. If

ordinary complex, higher penalty for the
more serious in its maximum period. When
we have an ordinary complex crime with
special aggravating, we always maximize.
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

There are always three periods. With the max, min, and medium. The problem is not all
penalties are imposed in its full extent. It is also not just one degree. For example, book two
will tell you that the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. It is given in its full extent.
When we say reclusion temporal in its full extent it would mean min, med, plus max. It includes
all of the periods. When the law says reclusion temporal, it includes all the periods in the
degree. When there is minority, we go one degree lower in full extent. If he is merely an
accomplice, lower the degree again. If it is frustrated, then we go lower again.

Not all penalties are like that. The penalties could only consider maximum + medium. What is
one degree lower?

Read Art. 61. It would be PM medium up to RT Minimum.

1 special aggravating + 1 ordinary mitigating = special aggravating always maximizes it.

Ordinary mittigating does it offset? We can only offset ordinary mitigating with ordinary
aggravating. Does the ordinary mitigating in this case have an effect? It means that there will
be the maximum of the medium.

THERE SHALL ALWAYS BE THREE PERIODS. EVEN IF THE LAW PRESCRIBES TWO, YOU HAVE TO CUT
TO THREE.

If it's RT med and min, divide the 2 into three different periods.

Reclusion perpetua + the maximum of the reclusion temporal is divisible. RT by itself is just
indivisible. This time, there is only minimum and maximum. RP is already the max. And then we
divide the max of RT into medium and minimum. SO THERE IS STILL THREE PERIODS.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

After you graduated the penalty in accordance with the provisions, apply indeterminate
sentence law. It is not exclusive to the RPC, so it can apply to other crimes that are not
punished in the RPC (not felonies). ISLAW says that after graduating in accordance to the
RPC, you still need to find the maximum range and the minimum range of the penalty.

The maximum range is the penalty arrived at after graduating in accordance to the RPC. For
example, PC max of its min. That is the maximum range, but we still have to find the minimum
range. It shall be one degree lower from the penalty prescribed by law. If the crime was
estafa through falsification of commercial document, the original penalty is PM Max. Thus,
one degree lower would be PC Max. We do not start from the graduated penalty. We start
from the penalty PRESCRIBED BY LAW!

Max: PC MIN OF ITS MAX

Min: AM MAX (in the max of AM, it can be anywhere because it is INDETERMINATE. It can be
max max, max mid, max min) > 4 years 2 months, 1 day - 6 years.

Indeterminate because it is at the discretion of the judge in its range. If the court says 5 years,
it will be in between the minimum and the maximum range.

Death -- Indivisible
RP --- Indivisible (everything else is divisible)
RT (Min, Med, Max)
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

PM
PC----- Destierro
AM
Am
PuCen/Fine

Enrile CASE (Plunder)

Note: minority is a privileged mitigating; seniority is not.

Ordinary mitigating only lowers by period, not by degree. Penalty for plunder is recluson
perpetua, which means that life is also not divisible, what's the use of the ordinary mitigating?
.

Continuation of Indeterminate Sentence Law

Friday, 15 September 2017
5:38 PM
When do we not apply ISLAW?

ISLAW is mandatory only for sentences involving imprisonment. (in the picture). ISLAW not
applicable?

1. It is when the penalty is inapplicable. Death, life, RP. Destierro is divisible. It can be
divided, but we do not talk about ISLAW is destierro because it is not imprisonment. It is not
applicable.

2. Not imprisonment (destierro or a fine).

3. Habitual delinquent

4. Not exceeding one year. (When the penalty does not exceed one year, you graduate it,
but you do not find the minimum. You only find the maximum).

In penalties which do not exceed one year, there will only be what is called a straight
penalty. If ISLAW is applicable, the court will say in this case, this is PC max min as the
maximum and Arresto Mayor Max anywhere. The penalty can go like this.

The use of minimum is for purposes of minimum. Probation is not based on the minimum but
the maximum. After serving the minimum sentence, he/she can ask for parole. (This is in
the range in regards to min-max in ISLAW).

(This is about the estafa with falsification of commercial documents na quiz cont. of
example) Section1 of ISLAW, the minimum should be taken by the penalty prescribed by
law. If minimum is one degree from the penalty prescribed by law, then that would be PC.
But why AM?

Before you take the minimum, you apply the privileged mitigating circumstances. In
another case, in temporal, SC said how about 2 ordinary mitigating without aggravating.
That's not privileged. SC said it must be treated in the same manner as a privileged
mitigating. That's why you have to lower and lower before applying ISLAW. That is only true
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

for privileged. For any other modifying circumstances, the law remains. It must be applied
verbally or literally. It is must be one degree lower. The only time that you do not put one
degree lower is when there is privileged. You have to lower una before you look for the
minimum. For any other, you apply the one degree lower of the original penalty.

If the person is sentenced to an indivisible penalty, can he/she avail of ISLAW if naay
privileged mitigating?

YES. Privileged mitigating takes precedence jud. It goes down by one degree. If it was from
RP to RT, he can now avail of ISLAW. When there is privileged, it has precedence.

If death?

In Art. 61, if the penalty is death (granting that there is death), death… according to Art.
61, what is one degree lower to death? The next lower to death is reclusion perpetua
which will be another indivisible. Because of death is the only penalty, even if there is
privileged, it will still be another indivisible. If it is not only death, if it is RP to death, what is
the one degree lower? It now becomes divisible through RT. Now that it is, we can now
apply ISLAW.

Even if RP is indivisible, it still has a period. 20 and 1 to 40. But it is still indivisible. But 20 & 1 is
for application of parole. But if it is only RP, he can be released at 20 and 1, but if he is not
released then he should be released after reaching the maximum of 30 years. For purposes
of parole, RP shall be computed at 30. Therefore, bisag dili siya irelease after 20 and 1, he is
released after 30 because it is considered the maximum for RP for parole. What is the 40
for? It is for when he has more than one crime committed.

Life has no duration. So you cannot say that 1 degree lower than life is something else.
There is a degree lower than RP, so if the person is a minor, and the penalty for the crime is
life, that means that he cannot be imprisoned for more than twenty years. But if he doesn't
have any privileged mitigating, it does not mean to say that he can be released at 30. It is
for reclusion perpetua. Life has no duration.

(PP v. Simon) ISLAW also applies in special penal laws. It also applies. But the problem in
special penal laws is that there are no degrees. How do we find the minimum range? In
special penal law, let us say for example that in a particular crime, the penalty is let us say,
5 to ten years. That's the penalty. 5-10 years, that's what the law says. Simon says we can
apply ISLAW because it's not just for RPC. It applies to all special penal laws. But how do we
know what's the next lower? Will it be 3-5, 2-5 etc? Therefore, in order to apply ISLAW (bec.
It is advantageous). How do we get the maximum. Get it anywhere as long as it's not more
than 10 years. For minimum, anywhere but not below 5 years. It's still in between 5-10. The
court can impose a sentence of 6-8 years or it can even be 9-10 years.

There are SPLs that are not like this, though. It can be similar to the RPC. In that case, we
can apply principles similar to that applied in the RPC.

PP v. Lian - DO not apply ISLAW to indivisible penalties. The exception is when there is
privileged mitigating. It was not a single indivisible. We said that if the penalty is RP, you
can't apply ISLAW to look for a maximum and the minimum. That's what Lian said.
However, if the penalty prescribed by law is RT maximum to RP, can we apply ISLAW?
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

Yes because RT max to RP is not indivisible. Because it is not indivisible but divisible, we can
apply indeterminate sentence law.

Lumauig v. PP (pic)

It is possible that the penalty arrived at after graduating is less than one year. SO there is
homicide. Minority, PM, then 1 privileged mit, PC, and then two ord mit, AM. 1 month 1 day
to 6 mos. You can see that the maximum does not exceed one year. Do we have a
straight penalty? Or do we apply ISLAW to apply one degree lower to get the minimum?
Do we still find the minimum here?

Here's what the law says, straight penalty of less than one year should be based on the
penalty prescribed, not the penalty arrived at after graduating. We can go one degree
lower, we can go to Am. You apply ISLAW because the 1 year 6 mos is not the penalty
prescribed by law, but the penalty arrived at after graduating. Because it is not the
penalty prescribed by law, you can apply ISLAW, and get the one degree lower for the
minimum range.

NEXT TOPIC: Execution and Service of Sentence

If you notice, the flow of discussion is from who committed crimes and etc. and then
muabot ta sa time that we will now sentence him. After sentencing him, we will now go to
how they will serve the sentence.
In execution of service of sentence, he can only serve it if he was sane at the time of the
sentence. Which means to say that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was still
sane. Because if he was already insane at the time of the commission of the crime, we will
have no penalty because he will be exempt. What we presuppose here is that the person
committed a crime when he was sane and later becomes insane. He will not be made to
serve the sentence. He will still be made to go to the mental hospital, but when he's sane,
he will be serving the sentence.

Earlier we said that detention is not considered penalty if he goes to a mental institution.
When he's gone to the mental hospital, it is not commuted from the sentence. It will not
prescribe. It will only prescribe if he escapes. If he escapes, the penalty may prescribe.

In the service of sentence, it's not really that the… diba naggraduate pa ta.. But actually
after a number of years, that may not be still the actual number of years that the convict
will serve. Makahangyo man. Let's say for instance that he committed several murders.
(Multiple murders = complex crime). Five murders, kada murder, that will be x reclusion
perpetua. Kada RP, it's 30. That will be 150 years. First matter of computing is
30+30+30+30+30 = 150. That is the first manner of computing it. The first formula is to add.
Then another formula that can be considered is the three-fold rule:

We get the most serious penalty, and then we multiply it by three. In this case, the most
serious is 30. Multiply it by three, meaning it will be 90. Because this is more advantageous,
the addition rule will not apply. We apply the more advantageous.

Other computation is that it does not exceed 40 years. This is the maximum. The one he
serves is the most advantageous, which is 40.

However, what if ang iya penalties are 1 ka ten years, usa ka two years, usa ka one year,
usa pa jud ka one year, and usa ka two years. 10+2+1+1+2 = 16. We use this because it is
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

the most advantageous out of the three rules. The number of years would depend on
which of the three will be more advantageous.

THIS IS STILL APPLICABLE FOR LIFE SENTENCE.

If there are several sentences, the manner of serving them is (pic). There is first material
accumulation system. In absorption, there will only be one penalty. That is the complex
crime (several crimes with one penalty but will be in the maximum). Then, juridical, there is
a limit. If there is only one, the limit is thirty. If there are several, the limit is 30.

GRADUATING A FINE BY DEGREE: (pic)

We do not graduate fine for ISLAW because that is only for imprisonment. We graduate
fine because what if it is frustrated or attempted? We still graduate by degree. What if the
person was an accomplice? Also degree. The crime is let's say, damage to property. The
penalty for damage to property is fine. What if B is not the principal. Dili siya ang namato or
dili nakasala. He was just an accomplice. He cannot be fined for the same amount. We
have to lower the penalty by degree. If the penalty is fine, let's say for example that the
penalty is 5000 to 10, 000. That's the penalty. If we lower this by degree, the next lower
degree would be you find the difference is based on 10000, and we'll find the 1/4 of the
maximum. So -2, 500. So 5000 to 7, 500.

If it is attempted, that will be 5000. We lower degree by deducting 1/4. Can we graduate
the penalty of fine by periods? Because this is degree. Can we graduate by period? Yes.
How?

If it is 5k to 10k, we do not anymore find the medium. We just find the max and the min. The
max will be 10k and the min is 5k.

PROBATION LAW

Probation applies when the penalty is fine or imprisonment. What is probation? In

probation, the person who is sentenced for the commission of the crime and penalized for
either fine or imprisonment will not pay the money and will not go to jail. He is already
jailed. He does not pay the sentence by paying the fine or going to jail (?). Those who are
convicted may not serve their sentence INSIDE the jail. In order to do that, they must meet
certain qualifications. There are also those who are disqualified. In order to avail:

Penalty imposed by court must not be more than six years. So it is possible that the person
charged with murder, possible to avail of probation. Kung tulo ka privileged diay?
Incomplete self-defense, minority, two mitigating. Not more than 6 years. So he can still
avail of probation.

It used to be that the penalty is the penalty imposed by the trial court, not the appellate
court. Which says that the case even if it came from RTC, it is important that the penalty
imposed by RTC is not more than six years. After that, the maximum should not be higher
than six years. It is possible that the minimum is two years. Pero if the max is 8 years, that will
not qualify you from probation. What is important is the maximum. IT USED TO BE (before
the amendment) that the penalty must be the penalty imposed by the trial court because
if the convict elevates his case on appeal, and later on he will lose his right to avail of
probation. THAT IS NOT SO ANYMORE!!
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

First, in the case of Colmenares, what happened was naconvicto si A for frustrated
homicide by the trial court. So prision mayor. It was the maximum because it was
frustrated. Therefore, because prision mayor is 6 years + to twelve years. Because it was
more than 6 years, he could not avail of probation. He went on appeal. When the case
reached the CA, CA said no, this is not frustrated homicide. This is only attempted. PRISION
CORRECIONAL where 6 mos to 6 years. This time he applied for probation. Can he do it?

Under the old law no. Because the old law says so. But even under the old law, SC made
the ruling in Colmenares (EVEN UNDER OLD LAW). SC said if the penalty imposed by the
court at first was more than six years and later appealed that case, and on appeal, it
becomes less than six years, he would still be entitled to probation because he could not
have applied for probation anyway. Because the penalty at that time was not yet six
years. Even if there was an appeal that the convict was still allowed probation, because
the six years was not the penalty imposed by the lower court. What happened was 2015,
Congress adopted the SC ruling.

CONGRESS CANNOT INTERFERE WITH PROCEDURE (SIDE NOTE). It is about plea bargaining.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Extinction of Criminal Liability

Friday, 22 September 2017
5:38 PM

Extinction of Criminal Liability (Art. 89) - Picture

(Side Note: Special Complex Crime, even in ordinary, alkansi. There will only be one crime.
As long as part of the main objective is to rob, it still counts as robbery as main objective).

Criminal liability can be extinguished, and these are the modes that may extinguish criminal
liability.

Death does not mean the death of the victim, but the death of the criminal. Death
extinguishes criminal liability, but death does not extinguish civil liability. If a person was sued
for estafa, now, the death of the accused will mean that there is no criminal liability, but only
in so far as criminal liability is concerned. It doesn't mean that the heirs and the estate will
not pay anymore. Their civil liability is not extinguished by death.

When we say service, it means the service of the sentence. If a person is convicted and the
penalty is 2 years, and he serves it in jail, that is service. Service may also constitute of not
really actual service inside the jail because we have probation. Not parole, because it
means you have served. In probation, there is a sentence, but you will not serve it inside the
jail. You are only made to report to the police officer for a certain duration. There is also now
what is known as a diversion program for minors. Could be in jail, or if it's a fine, could be the
payment of the fine. AS a matter of fact, it could be service even before the conviction
because when we go to partial extinction, we have the computation of imprisonment while
the case is still pending.
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

Amnesty. How does it differentiate from pardon? We are talking about executive clemency
(absolute pardons). In order to extinguish, pardon must be absolute. If it is not absolute, it will
not extinguish because anytime the condition is violated, the person can go back to jail.

Amnesty v. Pardon = while pardon is the exclusive prerogative of the executive department
(President), in amnesty, there has to be action from Congress. There has to be legislation
from Congress of course, approved by the President. In essence, it is a law which is
approved by the President. For absolute pardon, it is just the President's.

Among the guidelines are that the offense committed must be a political offense. If the
offense is not political, there can be no amnesty. It only extends to political offenses like
rebellion, sedition, treason. I'm not sure about terrorism because it may not be political in
nature. Amnesty must be political in nature.

In pardon there must be a conviction already. The conviction must be by final judgment.
Amnesty can be given before a person is convicted. In the mid-1990s, there was the RAM
boys. It also extended to members of the military who were given amnesty. There was also
for the NPA. Even if their cases have not yet been decided in court. So once there is
amnesty, whoever has a pending case, they can move for the dismissal of the case.

Then we have prescription of the crime and the penalty. What is the difference between the
two? When we say prescription of the crime, it is the right of the state which will be forever
lost if the case is not filed within a certain number of years. For example, Juan killed Pedro.
Even if Juan already knew who already killed Pedro (of course he knows). Juan killed Pedro.
Even if the heirs knew who killed Pedro, they did not file the case in court. If they did not file
the case after 20 years, they can't file the case anymore because the crime has already
prescribed. In prescription of crime, we are talking of a situation where no case is filed in
court. If a case is already filed in court, no more talk of prescription of crime. Once the case
is filed in court, it will not prescribe anymore.

Counting starts from commission of the crime. This is the general rule. Exception to that
would be even if the crime was committed, but nobody knew that the crime was in fact
committed at the time. For example, Buniel case. If it is not known, the exception would be
at the time of the discovery. In the case, nobody knew. 2 years after, it was known that she
was murdered.

Exception to the exception: when it involves the act of registration, there is the case of
Recibido. In that case, the SC said that registration is considered as a notice to the whole
world. For example, if you buy a piece of land, you will be granted the title. The title will be
binding against the whole world. And it will serve as notice. If there is a crime committed
and the crime committed involved land which was subsequently registered, the discovery is
deemed to be the time of registration. This is notice to the whole world. Because it was
registered, you were supposed to have known. Therefore, the counting of the prescription
will not be the actual discovery but the fact of registration which is the presumptive
discovery.

The law also says that prescription will not run if the accused is outside of the country.

We go to prescription of penalty, in prescription of penalty, what happens is that there is

already a sentence. That's why we talk about penalty now, because there is already a
sentence. Meaning, the trial of the case has already terminated. Someone was found guilty,
and he is now going to serve his sentence. SC said that there can be no prescription of
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

penalty unless the person who is convicted has already been arrested, and has started
serving sentence and has not escaped. There will be no prescription of penalty.

Ruben Ecleo case: charged for parricide. He was charged for the killing of his wife. While the
case was still being tried and ongoing, he was granted bail. Usually, parricide, no bail? But
somehow, one judge granted him bail (P3M). Because he posted bail, he is now free but the
case is still pending and he disappeared. When he disappeared, the trial can still proceed
which is trial in absentia. You cannot have trial in absentia if there is no agreement. Then,
later on the court found him guilty because he was considered guilty, he was sentenced. He
can appeal, but because he will not surrender, all the appeals were dismissed. Therefore,
the ruling finding him guilty became final and executory. There is no more appeal, and
because of this, therefore in the ordinary course of things, he is made to serve his sentence.
For some reason, he could not be seen. Can there be prescription of penalty?

No, because he never began serving the sentence. When the penalty can only prescribe
when there is already a conviction. At the time he was out, there was no conviction yet. If
like 50 years, once he re-emerges, he can still be made to serve the sentence because it
has not yet prescribed. If he escaped, he will be rewarded for his escape which is the
prescriptive period.

What's the period for reclusion perpetua? 20+1 -> 40. 30 years parole. Prescriptive period is
20 years. Padakop ka, layas ka, 20 ra. It would prescribe. If you get caught, it's 30.

Marriage of the offended woman. These are the modes of extinction of criminal liability.

Civil Liability
Friday, 6 October 2017
6:33 PM
One of the sources of civil obligations is crime. When there is a crime, there is civil liability as well.
Not only criminal liability, but also civil liability. It does not happen all the time because there are
crimes where there are no victims. Where there are no victims, there is no need to pay civil
liability. Offender will only be made to face criminal liability, but not criminal liability.

When the SC makes a conviction, it will also in the same breath grant an a monetary award to
the victims. Usually P75K when there is death and etc. Crime estafa and the amount involved is
100k, when there is a conviction, Court doesn't just say that you will go to jail. In the same
judgment, they also have to pay money to the victim. There can be civil liability arising from
criminal liability. It only happens when there is a private offended party - when there is a victim.
The reason for that is it's not in all crimes that there are victims = VICTIMLESS CRIME.

What does civil liability constitute of?

1. Restitution - The thing itself must be restored. If we say that there is a vehicle that was
carnapped, you don't buy a new vehicle and give it to the victim. It's the same vehicle
that is returned if it can still be returned. The same is true with phones and jewelry. That will
be restored.
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

2. Reparation - There is damage caused but you can't replace the thing anymore. You
have to compensate for the property. An example of that would be arson. Property is
burned. You can't restore the same property anymore. Now there will be reparation of the
loss. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY USUALLY.

3. Indemnification - It's usually a monetary compensation. When a person is killed, heirs are
given indemnification. Damages can constitute actual damages. Damages incurred after
unearned income. Mental - Moral, Exemplary, Nominal, Temporate, Actual Damages,
Liquidated Damages.

Even if the offender is exempt or justified, in these cases there is no criminal liability, but there is a
crime. In these instances, there may still be civil liability. Who are liable for civil liability? The
person who is primarily liable is the perpetrator. He himself is primarily liable. However, if the
person responsible for a crime is either insane or a minor, he cannot incur civil liability. Minor and
insane persons cannot incur any civil obligations. They are incompetents. It doesn't mean that
minors will not have any criminal liability at all. They still will if they acted with discernment. In so
far as civil liability is concerned, they will not. PARENTS SHOULDER THIS. PRIMARY LIABILITY.

For employers and innkeepers, they are also liable. But their liability is subsidiary. It means that if
the person who is primarily liable is unable to pay… If offender committed crime while in the
performance of his functions, then employer pays if person who is primarily liable is unable to
pay.

EXAMPLE: TAXI DRIVER who hits a person. He will be criminally liable. Mode of commission is
culpa. Because he is criminally liable, he will also be civilly liable. The only person sued is the
driver. Owner has no criminal liability. In the same ruling, the court will not only impose the
judgment as to the penalty but also impose the civil liability. The court will say you are convicted
and ordered to pay this much in the same criminal case. There is no need to file a separate civil
action. IT represents the criminal case as well as the civil case.

They are deemed instituted together, but it is possible that they may be separated. However, if
the driver cannot pay, then the sheriff may go to the operator of the taxi. There is no need to file
a separate case. You only need to prove that the convict was employed at the time he
committed a crime.

CHECK CASE STUDY IN PICTURES:

• Pedro is liable. His liability is primary.

• Nestor may be civilly liable if Pedro cannot pay. The civil liability of Nestor is only
subsidiary because the crime was committed in the performance of his employment as a
driver.

NEXT CASE STUDY:

• Is Jose, the parent of Joselito civilly liable? Yes, primary liability.
• Yes because parents are primarily liable, still.

Culpa criminal v. Criminal contractual

If driver out of his negligence hurts the passenger, then the driver would probably be criminally
liable. In so far as the operator is concerned, the liability of operator under criminal contractual is
primary, not subsidiary. When person rides in taxi, there is an implied contract of driving safely the
passenger. Driver is just the agent of the operator. If the person who is hurt is the passenger, and
 CRIMINAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | FISCAL PETRALBA

this passenger has a contract with the operator, if the contract is breached and not realized,
that person who is liable under the contract is the operator. CULPA CONTRACTUAL.

WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS CULPA CRIMINAL. The person here is the pedestrian. He was hit.
Vicente did not have a contract with Nestor. But if Vicente was a passenger, then it would have
been a different pattern. It wouldn't be under criminal law, it would be under obligations and
contracts.

LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS: maybe only civil and subsidiary. There is a possibility that the liability is
separated.

Osoa v. Madula: civil liability can be determined in criminal action, unless it was waived or
reserved. Possible that the victim will file a separate civil action. For example, the crime is just
unjust vexation - Arresto minor. Leni Robredo was said to be pregnant by fake news reports.
News responsible is sued. Not confident that there will be a conviction. If you file a criminal case,
it must be filed in the place of commission. You are a victim of maltreatment (child abuse). Civil
liability can be filed anywhere. You might not want to file it in the place of commission because
you are not from there and the victim is. That is why you file a separate civil action. The
perpetrator will have to come to you this time. Easier to prove civil case because of
preponderance of evidence.

Subsidiary imprisonment ONLY WHEN THE PENALTY IS A FINE AND HE CANNOT PAY!!!

If your means improve that naa na kay masheriff, dili na ma-quits ang civil liability. Civil liability is
different if the child inherits from the parents. The child may still pay for it. The estate or heirs will
still pay for civil liability if inherited. If it is not the property of the offender, then child will not pay
because he is not civilly liable. If there is an estate, even if the offender dies, and even if the
estate will pass onto the heirs, the heirs will be liable.

Article 109 and 110 - Notwithstanding principals, accomplices, and accessories each within their
class, shall be liable solidarily among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiarily for those of the
others.

READ VELASCO - IT WILL COME OUT IN EXAM. In those two cases, you will notice that it is a
variation of the general rule. What we are discussing are the general rules = person criminally
liable is also civilly liable. Primary liable. If minor, he will not incur civil liability, instead it's parents
who are civilly liable. If he committed crime while in the performance of his function as an
employee, the employer will have to pay. SC in these two cases made sort of a delineation. In
Guchiaco v. Ching, the persons held criminally liable were Ching and Casta, but SC did not hold
them civilly liable. Why? You will have to find out because it is a deviation. In Velasco, what
happened was there were 4 people engaging in illegal recruitment. The mastermind in the
syndicate of illegal recruitment was A. A was not arrested, only B was arrested. B was only the
secretary. She was arrested on the basis of conspiracy. She did not receive the money, and
even if she did, it was insignificant. She was tried and found criminally liable for illegal
recruitment. If there is criminal liability, there is civil liability. Ang nadawat kay 25K ra. How much
will B pay when she didn't receive 25K. The others have already fled. They weren't convicted.
That was the issue in Velasco.

In short, there are small delineations from the general rule.